or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2006 Rossignol B2s (174cm)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2006 Rossignol B2s (174cm)

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 
Skier: Male, 43 yrs. old, 20 years skiing, level 8, 165 lbs.
Recent skis: Atomic Izor 9:7, Atomic M11, Atomic M10, Atomic R11, Salomon X-Scream.
Boots: Salomon X-Wave 10s

I've spent two days on my new, 2006 Rossignol B2s in the 174 cm length (Mt. Sunapee, NH and Killington, VT). I have the 2006 Atomic Neox 310 bindings on them. The bindings are set at the "central" position. This is my first pair of Rossignol skis.

Between the two mountains, I had hard snow, soft snow, ice, softer crud, loose and frozen granular on the sides at times and even 4-5 inches of powder in spots.

Here goes:

The ski seemed very light in weight, even lighter than my current lightest ski, the 2006 Atomic Izor 9:7s.

The skis tracked very well. They were very stable in all conditions without seeming slow and tankish. Although they're very light, the tips didn't get deflected at all in the chopped up snow and later in the day, sunny slopes spring-like mashed potatoe snow.

No chatter, none. I was on some rock-hard early morning groomers at Mt. Sunapee and got no chatter up from the skis. For such a light ski, they really seem to absorb the chatter.

As for edgehold, the best I've been on, period. We were on Vertigo at Killington and it was granite-like in spots. I had no problem putting an edge into the surface and cutting turns. My buddy behind me on his older K2 5500s was all over the place as were the others behind us (Volks and Atomics). Obviously the edges on my skis are only 2 days old, but they did hold very well without being "grabby."

I liked the skis in the bumps (I am not a great bump skier and tend to ski the lower level bumps). The lighter weight and soft flex seemed to help me a lot there. They were comparable to my Izor 9:7s in the bumps except the extra width gave me a better platform.

I didn't notice any loss of side to side quickness with the extra width (78mm underfoot vs. other skis with 72mm).

The skis seem to handle all turn shapes very well. They never felt locked into a turn shape (they have a 16.6 turn radius) and with their rounded and slightly raised tail seemed to release from the turns very smoothly.

Overall: I'm very surprised and impressed by the B2s. I read the review of it on the RealSkiers Webpage and got a great deal on it so I bought it without a demo. My friends who had the older Rossis (X and XX) really liked theirs so I went for it. The skis are stable, quick and seemed versatile. No deep powder or tree skiing yet though.

I am a surprised, but am happy to add the Rossi B2 to the quiver.
post #2 of 3
I've been saying this for the past two years.
post #3 of 3
Oh, but because they are not a Volkl, Atomic, Head, or Fischer and not a wood core, they can't be good, according to half the posters at the Barking Bear forum.

My demo of the B2 and B3 last year found them to be fun, fun, fun. I did not use them on hardpack, just major league Sierra cement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2006 Rossignol B2s (174cm)